This case study is an anonymised composite based on publicly reported PI claim patterns. It is not actual Apex client data and does not constitute legal or insurance advice. Names, locations and identifying details have been changed. Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, FRN 724952.
A specialist conservation practice with four architects in a south-coast city, fee income around £960,000. Predominantly residential and small commercial work on Listed Buildings and properties in conservation areas, with strong relationships in the local authority conservation team and a number of long-standing private clients with Grade II and II* properties.
The instruction was the refurbishment and partial reconfiguration of a Grade II Listed townhouse — an early-Victorian terrace property in a designated conservation area, owned by a private client who had purchased the property the previous year. The works included a new garden-level extension, internal reconfiguration on three floors, replacement of certain internal joinery, and a proposed alteration to the roof line at the rear to accommodate an additional habitable room in the loft space.
The firm undertook the Listed Building Consent (LBC) application and the parallel planning application. The application narratives engaged thoroughly with the heritage assessment and the conservation officer’s pre-application comments. The consent was granted subject to standard conditions including a requirement for a method statement on certain internal joinery removals and a pre-commencement condition relating to the roof alteration.
The works were procured by the client through a contractor with limited Listed Building experience but otherwise good local references. The firm acted as designer and provided periodic site inspection but was not appointed as contract administrator. The contractor commenced works.
The issue arose around the scope of the consent. The granted LBC, read carefully, authorised the roof alteration in a specific form — a rear-facing dormer of defined proportions, set back from the existing ridge line. The contractor, working from the firm’s working drawings that pre-dated the consent and had not been fully updated for the post-consent design refinements, constructed a dormer that was approximately 200mm taller and 350mm wider than the consent authorised. The discrepancy was not trivial — it was visible from the public realm at the rear of the property — but it was not, in conservation terms, a substantial divergence.
The local authority conservation officer identified the discrepancy on a routine compliance inspection three months after completion of the dormer. The matter escalated. The authority issued a Listed Building Enforcement Notice under section 38 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, requiring the dormer to be reconstructed in compliance with the consent.
The client’s claim against the firm was framed in negligence under Hedley Byrne principles and breach of the firm’s appointment. The pleaded loss was the cost of dismantling and reconstructing the dormer in the consented form (approximately £45,000), the abortive cost of the original work (approximately £18,000), additional fees and disbursements in the renewed enforcement engagement (approximately £12,000), and a general damages claim for inconvenience and disruption.
The firm’s defence engaged the proximate cause analysis. The contractor had executed works that did not match the firm’s most recent drawings; the discrepancy was a construction defect, not a design defect. The firm’s working drawings, properly read, did reflect the consent. The firm had not been appointed as contract administrator and had no formal site quality assurance role. These were real points but not absolute — the firm had a residual duty to communicate the importance of consent compliance to the contractor and to engage with departures it observed on its periodic site visits.
Pleaded loss was approximately £92,000. The matter resolved at mediation at approximately £48,000 inclusive of the client’s contribution to costs.
Section 5 notification was made on receipt of the client’s pre-action letter. The wording responded subject to the firm’s £10,000 excess. The £1m limit was comfortably sufficient.
A coverage question arose around the statutory enforcement element. The wording responded to the firm’s liability for the client’s losses arising from professional negligence — including the costs of reinstating works to the consented form. Some PI wordings exclude or sub-limit losses arising from regulatory or enforcement action; the firm’s wording did not contain such an exclusion. The wording’s response was clean.
A second question arose on the CIL/planning gain payments. These were not engaged on the facts of this matter, but the typical PI wording’s treatment of agreed sums under planning agreements is variable and worth understanding at renewal.
The matter resolved at mediation at approximately £48,000 inclusive of the client’s costs. The £10,000 excess applied.
The settlement was paid. The firm introduced a documented “consent compliance checkpoint” on all Listed Building projects: before any major works element commences on site, the firm undertakes and documents a comparison between the contractor’s working drawings and the granted consent and any subsequent revisions. The firm’s PI premium rose by approximately 18% at renewal — a modest impact for a relatively low-quantum matter, reflecting the underwriter’s view of the firm’s prompt and structured remediation.
Listed Building and conservation claims have a distinctive character. First, the granted consent is the legal scope of permissible work — not the firm’s working drawings, not the contractor’s interpretation, not the pre-application discussions. The firm’s process should evidence the relationship between the consent and the working drawings at every revision. Second, contractors with limited Listed Building experience are an elevated risk factor; the firm’s communications with the contractor at project setup should set out the consent compliance requirements explicitly. Third, enforcement notices under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 are not a market-based remedy — the only resolution is compliance, with the financial cost falling where the contractual liability sits. Fourth, the firm’s PI wording on regulatory and enforcement costs should be benchmarked at renewal; the cover is generally good but not invariable. Fifth, the client engagement letter on conservation projects should explicitly address whose responsibility it is to ensure on-site compliance with the consent — typically the contractor’s, but with a residual architect role that needs to be acknowledged.
For conservation practices the principal renewal conversation is about the limit, the excess and the wording’s treatment of regulatory and enforcement engagement. We benchmark these explicitly against the firm’s actual work profile. On notification, the careful characterisation of the issue — as a contractor-led construction defect with a residual architect contribution rather than as a primary architect design failure — has consequences for both defence and renewal. At renewal, the firm’s documented consent-compliance protocol is the evidence the underwriter values.
Apex Insurance Brokers serves UK professional services firms and commercial businesses. Call 0117 325 0027, email hello@apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk, or request a quotation.
Get a quote